Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>> > Exactly. With Fedora respecting the standard in this regard,
>> > I'm convinced we should, too. In reviewing things based on
>> > Peter's question, I did start to have doubts about *not*
>> > special-casing "status" -- it has its own set of values and 5
>> > is not assigned, so using it seems wrong. It seems like it
>> > should be 3 ("program is not running"). Agreed?
>>
>> Probably. I think that in practice most scripts are not very
>> tense about this --- as long as the exit code is 0 or not-0 per
>> spec, which not-0 value is reported is not so exciting to most
>> people.
>
> So, do the startup scripts as they exist in CVS need any
> adjustment?
It would be trivial to make it a tiny bit more correct, but it's
probably not worth it. Almost all init scripts I've seen don't
bother to make this more correct, and some in the community seem to
prefer brevity in this script over correctness -- we got a complaint
about having a few characters in there to take it this far. I'm
inclined to say it's good enough.
If we want a more compliant Linux script, the community preference
seems to be that we do most of that work in pg_ctl, for which we now
have a TODO or two.
-Kevin